Engadget's managed to get their hands on the new Samsung F700, you know, the iPhone-like phone but with a QWERTY keyboard and 3.5G.

They've also managed to get their hands on the new glofiish (or E-TEN if you know them by their previous name) X800, which is packed with everything you could possibly think of right now - 3.5G, video calling capability with a front-mounted camera, Windows Mobile 6, Skype, GPS, Wifi, Bluetooth, and a 2-megapixel camera to cap it all off. That's one giant battery waster too, with 4 radios, and two cameras. Wonder how long it lasts if you turn all 4 radios on...

But so what, they're loaded on features. Hardcore geeks, corporate types with money to burn aside, and wannabe geeks/gadget freaks aside, why would someone want this phone over the iPhone, which is their biggest competitor at the moment. They can't deliver the user experience, they'll never be able to generate enough advertising and promotion to make them desired, to make them cool, to make them the thing I need.

And that's probably why Apple will still kick arse even though its product doesn't have 3G (well, the first generation one anyway), doesn't have GPS (although it boasts Google Maps), is relatively more closed than the Windows Mobile 6 platform (although the Samsung platform is also probably fairly closed except for Java), among other things.

Phone manufacturers suffer from the same problem that Microsoft suffered from, forcing them to create their own music player, the Zune. They can't work closely enough with the many phone providers around the world to pull off a concerted advertising campaign and a user experience that kicks arse. They also can't design polished, well-designed devices either that are easy to use and don't require buyers to read a 1000-page manual.

Apple on the other hand, stomps in with a stylish and well-designed product, and smothers strategic advertising platforms with unique, smart, witty, competitor-bashing, creative ads that plant the user experience seed in everyone's mind when they see it - their user experience starts then, not when they get the product. The amount of crap they say is irrelevant (Mac's have no viruses/worms or security issues, my arse). Case in point - we were talking about Vista and a mate says, "Vista just copies Macs." The thing is, he's never had a Mac, never tried Vista, and uses a Windows XP machine. When I asked why, he couldn't give any reasons. This is the most powerful advertising any company can get - people subconsciously thinking that their product is better than the competitors without justification. After all, how many of the decisions we make in life are fully backed by facts and facts alone?

Is it really that hard for anyone else to design a nice, sex-oozing product (which is subjective and perceptions can be changed through advertising), but more importantly pull off such an advertising campaign, even if its just in one part of the world to start off with? Why does no one else have an advertising strategy that's similar? Hell, even Microsoft, with its huge cash reserves, doesn't - no, the lame Vista 'Wow' ads don't count; the Vanishing Point game was cool and unique though. I'm not talking about copying the ads and the concepts behind the ads, but just the techniques that Apple uses. The only other products that has unique primetime ads that people immediately identify with when they start are the Red Bull line art ads, and that's a completely different industry (that's as much as I can think of right now).

Some marketing strategies work for products, and some don't, and fair enough, I wouldn't want to see the ads all following the same formula. But I don't understand why of all the tech companies out there, no one is copying Apple's techniques. Maybe the fear of Apple and its fanboy's wrath is enough to act as a deterrent...

P.S. just saw the new ANZ ad, with the voiceover and scrolling credits telling viewers all the various places the guy in the ad was helped by, e.g. dressed by, hair by etc. Nice tactic I reckon.